Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka heard a criminal appeal filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 against their conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of E. Asha under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that on 26 September 2011, the accused slit the throat of the deceased with a knife, doused her with petrol, and set her on fire, leading to her death on 14 October 2011. The investigation commenced after the police recorded a dying declaration (Ex.P14) at the Government Hospital, Pavagada, and initially registered a case under Sections 326 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. After the death of the victim, the charge sheet was filed under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The trial court, in S.C. No. 69/2012, convicted both accused and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000 each. In appeal, the appellants contended that the dying declaration was unreliable, not recorded in the language known to the deceased (Telugu), lacked medical certification of fitness, and was created by the police. They also argued that the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses, the doctor who treated the deceased for 14 days, and did not send blood-stained mud for forensic analysis. Further, the seizure of the knife was not supported by independent evidence, and the father of the deceased (PW.12) turned hostile. The State, represented by the High Court Government Pleader, supported the conviction, arguing that the dying declaration was credible, the victim survived for 18 days after the incident, and minor discrepancies did not vitiate the prosecution case. The State emphasized that the evidence, including the FSL report and material objects, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and faulty investigation could not be a ground to overturn the conviction. The provided extract of the judgment ends abruptly during the State's submissions and does not contain the court's final reasoning or decision. Therefore, the ultimate outcome of the appeal could not be determined from the available text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused based on the dying declaration (Ex.P14) and other circumstantial evidence, and whether the conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC were sustainable.
Law Points
- dying declaration reliability
- burden of proof on prosecution
- evidentiary value of police witnesses
- corroboration of dying declaration
- Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act
- appreciation of evidence in criminal appeal
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (08) 78
Criminal Appeal No. 1249 of 2015
B. Veerappa, Pradeep Singh Yerur
Hasmmath Pasha (Senior Counsel for S. Srinivasa Reddy) for appellants; S. Rachaiah (High Court Government Pleader) for respondent
Hanumantharayudu, Mallesha
The State of Thirumani Police Station
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
Remedy Sought
The appellants/accused sought to set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.09.2015 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri, in S.C. No. 69/2012.
Filing Reason
The trial court convicted the appellants based on the dying declaration (Ex.P14) and other evidence; the appellants challenged the findings as erroneous and contrary to settled criminal law principles.
Previous Decisions
The trial court in S.C. No. 69/2012 convicted both accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000 each, with default simple imprisonment of three months.
Issues
Whether the dying declaration (Ex.P14) was valid, reliable, and admissible in evidence.
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the trial court's appreciation of oral and documentary evidence was perverse and illegal.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants: The dying declaration was created by the police, not recorded in Telugu (the language known to the deceased), lacked a doctor's certification of fitness, and was shrouded with suspicion; no independent witnesses supported the seizure of the knife; the father of the deceased turned hostile; the doctor who treated the deceased for 14 days at Victoria Hospital was not examined; blood-stained mud was not sent for FSL; medical records and MLC registers were not produced; and the prosecution failed to establish any link between the accused and the death.
Respondent/State: The prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt through oral and documentary evidence, including the dying declaration, which clearly implicated the accused; the victim survived 18 days after the incident, showing she was in a fit state to make the declaration; discrepancies or omissions in Ex.P14 did not render it inadmissible; faulty investigation could not be a ground to overturn a conviction based on cogent evidence; and the trial court's judgment was not perverse or illegal.
Judgment Excerpts
It is the case of the prosecution that on 26th September 2011 at 7.00PM the accused persons took the deceased E.Asha ... slit her neck with knife causing bleeding injuries and further they doused petrol on her and set her on fire.
The Police recorded her dying declaration.
The prosecution has not produced any medical records or MLC Register from the Government Hospital, Pavagada or Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, to show any relation between the death of the deceased and the appellants.
Ex.P14, which is the alleged dying declaration, is a created document by the Police, which is shrouded with suspicion and hence, the same cannot be the basis for conviction of the accused for the offence.
There is no perversity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence lead by the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused, which has not been shaken by the defence.
Procedural History
The incident occurred on 26.09.2011. The police recorded the dying declaration at Government Hospital, Pavagada, and initially registered a case in Cr. No. 44/11 under Sections 326, 307 read with 34 IPC. The victim succumbed to injuries on 14.10.2011 at Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. The Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet on 13.11.2011 for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. The case was committed for trial as S.C. No. 69/2012 before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madhugiri. The trial court framed charges, examined 18 witnesses, marked 24 documents and 6 material objects, and recorded the accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial court convicted both accused on 28.09.2015 and sentenced them to life imprisonment and fine. The accused preferred the present appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 34, 326, 307
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2), 313
